And I mean Literally in the old sense of the word, not the informal sense.

Neither do I, though I just dont consider using interpreters to run computer programs. The difference in runtime between a lambo and a lada

Ah here. I know I'm derailing my own thread, but that statement is hideously naiive

First of all, for this sort of application, Perl performs surprisingly well vs, say, C. Perl's regex matching is highly optimised and very hard to beat for complex expressions. Secondly, the major component of the execution time here was network and Pin latency. You have to do 118 http GETs to retrieve all the pages, so the thing took a few minutes of elapsed time to run. Any optimisation in a compiled language would be completely lost in that network overhead (like shooting a pea down O'Connell St, as the expression goes). Thirdly, this is a single-use programme so it's silly to think about execution speed in isolation -- it's possible that a C version may have run a second faster, but it would have taken an hour longer to write. Perl is undoubtedly "faster" as a way to solve this problem than C would be.

I had posted a bit (I'm guessing 10-15 posts) but gave up as the thread got so 'noisy' toward the end of the debate.

My own prediction btw was Yes by only 52-48. I was way off. My hunch was based on the large amount of No sentiment I was seeing on social media and comments sections.

Well over the past few days I'm seeing numerous people saying that they voted Yes but don't want abortion on demand. My own view, as stated during the course of the thread, is that this is (and was) stupendously naive of them given the fact that the legislation was published in advance of the vote.

However, it does highlight an issue around the supposed lesson to be taken from the result, and which was also, I would assume, the intention behind the creation of this thread for example ie to suggest that the claims of media bias and disproportionate representation in favour of the Yes side are incorrect and based on what has been claimed to be an inflated sense of victimhood on the part of those who don't toe the liberal regimes ideological line.

While obviously it's difficult to seek to apply nuance to the result of a debate that appears to have been deliberately framed in a manner that would encourage polarization of both interaction and outcome, we do know that opinion polls, to include the last Irish Times MRBI poll, showed that a majority of voters, to include a majority of Yes voters felt that the legislative proposals went well beyond their own personal preference i.e. they favoured Liberalisation but they did not favour abortion on demand.

This view was not represented anywhere, either within the political sphere or the media. Instead two extremities were pitted against each other, neither of which represented the majority view on the matter. For example I've read a number of comments by moderate Yes voters over the past few days saying that thy were sickened by the display in Dublin Castle on the evening of the result.

In essence, the best thing that happened to Repeal was the presence of hardline religious people standing front centre on the other side as it allowed the hard left leaning lunatic fringe at the heart of Repeal to avoid any focus on their own anti human ideology. They could simply scream incessantly about the 2% hard cases safe in the knowledge that their opponents, when put on the spot, would claim it's reasonable for the hypothetical 12 year old rape victim to be forced to carry a pregnancy to full term.

Nontheless, it's done and dusted now and abortion on demand it will be. And the biggest culprits for this in my view are the religious right who hijacked the entire No campaign. Even a willingness to compromise slightly could have avoided what's coming. In this regard, while many conservative, centre right or even basic traditionalists, who may fear for what may be coming down the line (in terms of the type of 'social change' that those who think abortion on demand is a positive want next in terms of education, law, freedom of expression etc etc) need to realise, is that the religious element in Ireland are a hindrance rather than a help. They represent nobody in their extremity and only serve to alienate the middle ground. Unless somebody steps forward to replace them I'm afraid Ireland will be unrecognizable (in a bad way) within a decade, if it's not already.

_________________"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.” ― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

PtG, your dogged obsessed with the idea that there's some kind of communist plot at the centre of the Repeal movement (and Irish politics in general) is bizarre.

That is what you're saying, right? With your reference to a hundred million dead.

Reds under the bed!

PtG also believes that 50% of Irish people are being silenced in a constitutional referendum, which is the epitome of democracy and cutting out the politicians, so you might want to keep that in mind.

This is the old alt-right story that shadowy forces are keeping conservative white men down by championing a liberal devil-worshiping agenda.

More correctly, I've stated that, based on the results of opinion polls around the issue, it seems likely that neither the pre referendum status quo nor unrestricted access to abortion as will now be enacted, reflected the preferred option of the majority.

However, based on the results of the question actually put to the people with regard to whether they wished to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution and permit the Oireachtas to legislate for the provision of abortion services, the result was quite clearly a resounding Yes.

But you knew that already....

Plus your reference to the Alt-right is juvenile and may actually be defamatory given my understanding is that they're some kind of Nazi Yanks

_________________"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.” ― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

Have noticed the following entering the thread....1) Psychopathologising other posters because a poster disagrees with their opinions (The opinion is what we are actually discussing, not the person themselves)2) Talking about other posters opinions in the 3rd person. straw-manning basically. X thinks this or that....) Ask them if they believe it, don't (mis-)speak on their behalf.3) Labeling (alt-right/conservative white men) (Technically in a discussion, you can apply a label provided you state it as an opinion or perception and provide supporting facts.)

Last edited by snaps on Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.